zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Aug 12, 2016 17:04:17 GMT -5
My "fine" would be much less than two months premium.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 12, 2016 17:18:48 GMT -5
I agree with you that it's a conversation that needs to happen, but I thought the US left didn't officially acknowledge that death panels are or could be a real thing. Honestly the first step is comprehensive individual planning sessions and periodic updating paid for while everyone is of sound mind. That alone will work wonders. Could you provide an example case? Something specific to emphasize where this kind of planning would save the system a substantial amount of money?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 3:38:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2016 20:39:57 GMT -5
Do we have any proof that young, healthy Americans were buying insurance before? I went uninsured from birth through age 14 and then from 22-25, and that was all pre-ACA. I went to a work-study college that was geared toward those on the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum, so most of my classmates who weren't on Medicaid were uninsured as well. And yes, our governor blamed the ACA for state employee premium hikes well before it actually took effect. I can't imagine why he (or the insurance companies) would have any ulterior motive for blaming their rate increases on Obama... I'm not blaming the ACA for low enrollment numbers among young Americans. My three grievances are thus: - The bill does nothing to address the root of high medical costs in the US, and this fact was foreseeable.
- The bill granted insurance to millions of sick, previously uninsurable Americans, and there is a high cost to be paid for this, especially in light of (1). Whether though premiums or government subsidies, spending on healthcare could only increase as a result of the bill. This fact was also foreseeable.
- The PPACA doesn't make any of the sacrifices needed for a sustainable healthcare system. Healthy people do not have the option to opt out of universal healthcare. There are no "gold", "silver", "bronze", etc. plans in universal healthcare. There is no prompt, guaranteed service in universal healthcare. Care is strictly rationed, tests and procedures are limited, and getting treatment can take months. There is no "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor." in universal healthcare. There is no "If you like your hospital, you can keep your hospital." in universal healthcare. Universal healthcare means busier and less-well-paid doctors, fewer specialists, necessary evils like death panels, and older people sitting on waiting lists until they die as a form of rationing.
It seems to me that anybody who supported the ACA had to live in willful denial of the realities of universal healthcare. Only a fool would believe America could reap the benefits of a universal healthcare system without making any of the necessary sacrifices, and that's precisely what the ACA pretends to do.
In short, I don't blame the ACA for creating the healthcare mess the US is in as much as I blame it for making the mess worse than it already was, and predictably so. You should have waited until there was enough public will to transition to a bona fide universal healthcare system and done things properly in the light of day. Yup... that.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 3:38:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2016 20:42:49 GMT -5
Why couldn't the govt leave people alone who had health insurance that was affordable and what they wanted and provide a plan for those who weren't covered ? Because that would have been too easy? When was the last time you saw or heard of the government doing anything the EASY way?
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Aug 12, 2016 20:45:01 GMT -5
Remember when it was touted that you didn't have to stay at a job you didn't like just for health insurance? Guess what? People stay at jobs they don't like because the employer subsidizes their health insurance. Otherwise you'd have a lot more people not paying into the "system."
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 3:38:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2016 20:45:58 GMT -5
My "fine" would be much less than two months premium. For this year... mine would be about 3 months worth. That's money I can't afford to pony up, so I throw away the government subsidy I qualify for on a plan that's not worth the paper it's printed on (as far as being 'healthcare' is concerned)... just so I don't have to have the illegal fine deducted from my tax refund.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Aug 12, 2016 20:48:34 GMT -5
Yes, heaven forbid I get sick. A 6k deductible then 20 per cent after that. 6K!! That's not for a family of four , it's for an individual policy. An HMO that I pay almost $800 a month for.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 3:38:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2016 20:54:50 GMT -5
My "affordable healthcare" is 100% out of pocket (OOP) until I reach $5,000... then I have a 50% co-pay until I get to $6,250 OOP
I can't afford to see a doctor for $125 for initial visit, then blood work or X-ray for $150-$300 then return consultation (after the doc gets the results) for another $125 THEN money for whatever needs doing.
Yeah... not happening on my budget.
On the other hand though... I get two free PAP smear tests and a free Mammogram every year thanks to my insurance! I wonder if I would surprise the gynocologist when he/she looked between my legs in the stirrups...
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Aug 12, 2016 20:58:37 GMT -5
My "affordable healthcare" is 100% out of pocket (OOP) until I reach $5,000... then I have a 50% co-pay until I get to $6,250 OOP I can't afford to see a doctor for $125 for initial visit, then blood work or X-ray for $150-$300 then return consultation (after the doc gets the results) for another $125 THEN money for whatever needs doing. Yeah... not happening on my budget. On the other hand though... I get two free PAP smear tests and a free Mammogram every year thanks to my insurance! I wonder if I would surprise the gynocologist when he/she looked between my legs in the stirrups... Oh, dear. Well, at least you get free birth control pills!!! . JK
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 3:38:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2016 21:05:31 GMT -5
My "affordable healthcare" is 100% out of pocket (OOP) until I reach $5,000... then I have a 50% co-pay until I get to $6,250 OOP I can't afford to see a doctor for $125 for initial visit, then blood work or X-ray for $150-$300 then return consultation (after the doc gets the results) for another $125 THEN money for whatever needs doing. Yeah... not happening on my budget. On the other hand though... I get two free PAP smear tests and a free Mammogram every year thanks to my insurance! I wonder if I would surprise the gynocologist when he/she looked between my legs in the stirrups... Oh, dear. Well, at least you get free birth control pills!!! . JK I know you were kidding... but I actually am covered for free BCP!
|
|
busymom
Distinguished Associate
Why is the rum always gone? Oh...that's why.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 21:09:36 GMT -5
Posts: 28,458
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"https://cdn.nickpic.host/images/IPauJ5.jpg","color":""}
Mini-Profile Name Color: 0D317F
Mini-Profile Text Color: 0D317F
|
Post by busymom on Aug 12, 2016 21:20:38 GMT -5
I don't think the problem is the "will of the people". I know plenty who would prefer a "one payer" plan.
The problem is greed. Those insurance companies who make the big profits, & deny certain procedures, even if the patient would benefit from some of them, are raking in the bucks, & subsidizing the politicians who keep it that way.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 12, 2016 21:22:20 GMT -5
My "fine" would be much less than two months premium. For this year... mine would be about 3 months worth. That's money I can't afford to pony up, so I throw away the government subsidy I qualify for on a plan that's not worth the paper it's printed on (as far as being 'healthcare' is concerned)... just so I don't have to have the illegal fine deducted from my tax refund. My "recollection" is that you have mentioned several times being limited-income. Would you have qualified for Medicaid if your state had expanded it? If so you should be blaming your governor and legislature for throwing your state's citizens under the bus. Do you qualify for the cost-sharing subsidies available to lower-income people who choose a Silver plan? Would that be better than what you have now or would the higher premium wipe out the savings? Nobody I know is claiming that the ACA is a great plan, but there were ways to make it more affordable for lower-income people. Your "illegal fine" is waived under certain circumstances, such as if your available coverage is truly unaffordable (if the costs exceed a certain percentage of income) or if you would have qualified for Medicaid if your state had expanded it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 3:38:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2016 21:41:39 GMT -5
For this year... mine would be about 3 months worth. That's money I can't afford to pony up, so I throw away the government subsidy I qualify for on a plan that's not worth the paper it's printed on (as far as being 'healthcare' is concerned)... just so I don't have to have the illegal fine deducted from my tax refund. My "recollection" is that you have mentioned several times being limited-income. Would you have qualified for Medicaid if your state had expanded it? If so you should be blaming your governor and legislature for throwing your state's citizens under the bus. Do you qualify for the cost-sharing subsidies available to lower-income people who choose a Silver plan? Would that be better than what you have now or would the higher premium wipe out the savings? Nobody I know is claiming that the ACA is a great plan, but there were ways to make it more affordable for lower-income people. Your "illegal fine" is waived under certain circumstances, such as if your available coverage is truly unaffordable (if the costs exceed a certain percentage of income) or if you would have qualified for Medicaid if your state had expanded it. If it wasn't for the fact that Obamacare will sooner or later implode... I probably would blame the State government for not expanding. However, since it's failing just as predicted... I congratulate them on their foresight. When Obamacare is canned (which it will be... sooner or later), those states that expanded will suddenly have all those extra people on their medicaid rolls to either cover all on their own, without Fed support... or drop from having coverage. And you know as well as I do that once a program starts giving people free stuff (stuff that actually works, anyway... unlike Obamacare Insurance), it's almost impossible to stop it, because people would riot.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 12, 2016 22:00:50 GMT -5
Nice rant...but it didn't answer the question. Would you have qualified (and your answer at least implies that you would)? If so, then you can stop whining about the "illegal fine." It would be waived for you. Does the cost of your plan exceed the allowed percentage of your income? If so, you can stop whining about the "illegal fine." It would be waived for you. Do you qualify for the cost-sharing subsidies that would (probably) greatly lower your OOP expenses?
A simple "No" will suffice.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 3:38:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2016 22:19:02 GMT -5
Nice rant...but it didn't answer the question. Would you have qualified (and your answer at least implies that you would)? If so, then you can stop whining about the "illegal fine." It would be waived for you. Does the cost of your plan exceed the allowed percentage of your income? If so, you can stop whining about the "illegal fine." It would be waived for you. Do you qualify for the cost-sharing subsidies that would (probably) greatly lower your OOP expenses? A simple "No" will suffice. Sorry... I thought that I would have qualified was implicit in my answer that no I don't. I don't qualify for the cost sharing subsidies... A "silver plan" was out of the reach of my budget... and there weren't any "cost sharing" options for people who can only afford the cheap crap that's available for people that actually NEED them.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 12, 2016 22:35:36 GMT -5
Nice rant...but it didn't answer the question. Would you have qualified (and your answer at least implies that you would)? If so, then you can stop whining about the "illegal fine." It would be waived for you. Does the cost of your plan exceed the allowed percentage of your income? If so, you can stop whining about the "illegal fine." It would be waived for you. Do you qualify for the cost-sharing subsidies that would (probably) greatly lower your OOP expenses? A simple "No" will suffice. Sorry... I thought that I would have qualified was implicit in my answer that no I don't. I don't qualify for the cost sharing subsidies... A "silver plan" was out of the reach of my budget... and there weren't any "cost sharing" options for people who can only afford the cheap crap that's available for people that actually NEED them. (Yeah, that was why I said it was at least implied.) Okay, so if I am understanding you now (and apologies if I'm not), you would have qualified for Medicaid if your state had expanded it, which they didn't. In that case, you are not subject to the penalty, or shared-responsibility payment as I think they call it. It would be waived for you, so why do you rant about not being able to afford it? It has no bearing on your decision-making. This of course has no relevance to what you are actually paying or can afford for what level of plan, but you could legitimately go without insurance if you wished and not pay a thing.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 3:38:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2016 22:58:36 GMT -5
Sorry... I thought that I would have qualified was implicit in my answer that no I don't. I don't qualify for the cost sharing subsidies... A "silver plan" was out of the reach of my budget... and there weren't any "cost sharing" options for people who can only afford the cheap crap that's available for people that actually NEED them. (Yeah, that was why I said it was at least implied.) Okay, so if I am understanding you now (and apologies if I'm not), you would have qualified for Medicaid if your state had expanded it, which they didn't. In that case, you are not subject to the penalty, or shared-responsibility payment as I think they call it. It would be waived for you, so why do you rant about not being able to afford it? It has no bearing on your decision-making. This of course has no relevance to what you are actually paying or can afford for what level of plan, but you could legitimately go without insurance if you wished and not pay a thing. I am only "not subject to the penalty" if subsidies wouldn't cover at least "Bronze Level" premiums. They do, so I would be. I rant on it being a complete and utter waste of taxpayer money (as well at it being illegal... no need to put quotes around that word, by the way... because the fine is illegal. The Supreme Court just ignored that it is.)
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 12, 2016 23:11:30 GMT -5
No, you should be eligible for a hardship exemption if you would have otherwise qualified for Medicaid but were denied because your state did not expand it. See hardship #12 (scroll about halfway down the page.) This may also enable you to purchase Catastrophic coverage if you wished. ObamaCare Exemptions List
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 3:38:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2016 23:55:41 GMT -5
No, you should be eligible for a hardship exemption if you would have otherwise qualified for Medicaid but were denied because your state did not expand it. See hardship #12 (scroll about halfway down the page.) This may also enable you to purchase Catastrophic coverage if you wished. ObamaCare Exemptions List I think you meant hardship #11 (12 is "Limited Benefit Medicaid and TRICARE Programs that are not minimum essential coverage"). And, as I said, that only applies if the subsidy will not fully cover the cost of a worthless whole "Bronze" plan. My subsidy covers the entire cost of the worthless plan. It doesn't mention that in the little blurb on the chart... but it was explained to me when I called in and asked about it: I don't qualify for the exemption because I can afford ZERO dollars a month payment (which is my OOP for the worthless "Bronze" plan, after subsidy).
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 13, 2016 0:44:51 GMT -5
Actually I was referring to the list further down. Regardless, I have never seen that restriction but it would make sense. There is no benefit to not having insurance if it doesn't cost you anything to have it.
If Tennessee's restrictions were not so ridiculous I might have an idea for you, but apparently non-disabled adults cannot qualify for Medicaid regardless of income. That seems pretty stupid.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 3:38:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2016 0:55:31 GMT -5
How'd you get my sister's picture?
|
|
steff
Senior Associate
I'll sleep when I'm dead
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 17:34:24 GMT -5
Posts: 10,772
|
Post by steff on Aug 13, 2016 2:35:09 GMT -5
I did a little on the spot survey tonight. Since I have a kid in the age group this is about & he has friends here all the time, and tonight there happened to be more than usual, I took a little insurance, politics & voting survey.
12 males, ages 19-24 , 10 employed (8 full time, 2 part time), 1 in full time college, 1 hopeless waste case (there's always 1) 8 living at home, 1 living in my basement closet (technically he's living with his dad, but is always here) 1 living on his own with no roommates, 1 living with his gf & her parents, and 1 living with roommates. Only 1 with kids (a newborn, like born last week & it's the guy living with his gf & her parents)
9 registered to vote, 7 that actually have voted at least once, and 4 that I have harassed for years into voting (I've drug them to the voting place with kiddo) on local, state & federal levels (this includes my kiddo)
11 Bernie fans and 1 "who?" (our village idiot) 6 willing to vote for Hillary, 2 still pouting over Bernie losing, the rest indifferent except for our village idiot who yelled "TRUMP!" randomly thru the night.
ALL but 1 (guy with the newborn) are still on their parent's insurance. My kiddo is the only one who has his own car insurance & isn't on ours. And the only one with a car note. None living at home pay rent, but they do pay their own bills (cell phone, gas, food & entertainment for my kid add car note, insurance, furniture store bill & gas card).
Education ranges from 2 in college, 2 with some college, and everyone graduated high school.
Jobs range from fast food to Walmart to Coca-cola delivery driver to starting a real estate career. 2 jobs are working for either a parent's company or the company a parent has worked at for years or in my kiddo's case, his gramma's company. And 1 of the ones in college is going for scientist (I have no clue what kind, it's so far over my head), so we got a super smart one on deck soon.
3 Black guys 9 white guys. 1 gay, 11 hetero. 1 occasional cross dresser (don't ask)
Only the 3 black guys had any religious beliefs, none of the white guys had any religious views or upbringing. My kid was the only white kid that even remembered being drug to church for Easter (once). Black guys got drug to church every Sunday growing up. None had ever been to vacation bible school (I found that odd being we're in the South).
None of these kids come from a high income home. Some were better off than others, but no one is living in a giant house with parents that make big bucks.
Now I didn't go asking them about specific policies or things one candidate or the other had said (their eyes would have glazed over). I did a pretty basic survey on them. But it was interesting to see a lot of similarities and a lot of differences in their answers.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 3:38:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2016 6:13:36 GMT -5
But even the guy with newborn could have been on his parents. Neighbor girl was married with 3, but still under 26 and still on her parents. I'd say that's probably the number one reason. Thanks steff nice survey
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,612
|
Post by Tennesseer on Aug 13, 2016 8:03:01 GMT -5
How'd you get my sister's picture? Double
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Aug 13, 2016 13:13:00 GMT -5
My "fine" would be much less than two months premium. So, if you're in an accident, breaking your pelvis and fracturing your skull, or have a stroke requiring months of hospitalization and rehab, you can pay for it out of pocket? Or, would your plan be to stiff the hospital or start a Go Fund Me account?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 3:38:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2016 18:19:00 GMT -5
My "kids" are in their 20's and still on my insurance. I pay less than $300/month for the 3 of us. A max of $600 annual deductible for all of us together. No idea yet what will happen for 2017, but the premiums for family coverage on my particular plan went down over $100/month for 2016 compared to 2015, with no decreases in coverage.
Both of my children work, but I'm pretty sure the extra costs to carry them on my insurance is less than they'd pay individually in premiums, and their potential OOP expenses would possibly increase, especially on the exchange. I don't really see the point in kicking them off before I have to, given the other options they have, and the fact that insuring them is not a burden for me. And I admit part of it is kind of self serving, I'm not confident they would get insurance on their own, and while they are young and healthy, one serious illness or accident where they couldn't get the level of care they can with my insurance would wreck my peace of mind if I stopped their coverage for no other reason than just because I can.
I'm not wealthy, but keeping my kids on my health insurance for as long as it makes sense and is possible is something I'm willing to do with the way healthcare and insurance are right now. I'm sure parents like me are the reason some (a lot?) of these healthy young adults aren't buying insurance on the exchange.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 3:38:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2016 0:15:37 GMT -5
My "fine" would be much less than two months premium. So, if you're in an accident, breaking your pelvis and fracturing your skull, or have a stroke requiring months of hospitalization and rehab, you can pay for it out of pocket? Or, would your plan be to stiff the hospital or start a Go Fund Me account? It's not about wanting to 'stiff' hospitals though. It's about not being able to afford 6 times the amount of the fine over the course of a year. A fine that's only collectible, by the way, by deducting it from a person's tax refund.
|
|
MarleyKeezy78
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 22, 2011 13:20:34 GMT -5
Posts: 3,226
Location: Sittin in the mitten
|
Post by MarleyKeezy78 on Aug 14, 2016 11:40:51 GMT -5
Personally I think we should scrap all this bullshit. I can't for the life of me understand why all these medical things are so goddamn expensive! We should not have insurance companies at all, they take all this money out of your check every month, you still have deductibles, copays, ect... Medical procedures should be reasonably priced and so should the medications, cut out the middle man sucking everyone dry and lining their pockets and create a market for actual affordable health care between the dr and the patient. I don't understand what would be so hard about that! These money grubbing companies can go eff themselves ETA: I just saw what Anne81 posted... That is what we need!
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 14, 2016 12:22:40 GMT -5
The biggest problem with the ACA is that it was basically written by the insurance companies. It was written to ensure their "rights" to massive profits. There should have been a public option all along, but it could not be passed due to GOP insistence against it. They want to insist that private companies are more efficient than government so can perform the tasks better. They do have a point in this case. Private companies are much more efficient at taking money OUT of the system.
Insurance companies are not in it for you. It should be unthinkable that they make that much money by not only working to deny you care but by deciding how much it should cost you. We should have universal basic and intermediate care as part of a two-tiered system. If you want to insure yourself against major issues like cancer, transplants, or other such things, fine. Do that. If you want to pay extra to ensure immediate access to whoever you wish to see, fine. Do that. What we had before was unsustainable and left tens of millions of people unable to access reasonable care. What we have now is sub-optimal, and we can do better.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Aug 14, 2016 12:57:56 GMT -5
A fine that's only collectible, by the way, by deducting it from a person's tax refund.
It's possible to adjust withholding to eliminate the refund due back from Uncle Sam. In your astuteness I'm sure you have looked into that, but I discovered along the way that most Americans are unaware of that possibility.
|
|